A community action group has raised “extraordinary” concerns over the council’s intention to approve of a Cheltenham development involving 100,000 cubic metres of material on an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

A Cheltenham Borough Council planning committee voted to conditionally permit plans to use “inert fill material” to create a new mini nine-hole course at Lilley Brook Golf Club, in Cirencester Road, Charlton Kings, on September 21.

The development, on AONB-protected land, will involve a volume of material equivalent to the footprint of Cheltenham Town Hall up to the height of Eagle Tower.

Now questions have been raised over the council’s handling of the application and the implications for flood risk levels, the environment and traffic in Charlton Kings.

An investigation has been carried out by the Charlton Kings Flood Action Group (CKFAG), backed by Flood Data Services consultants.

What are the concerns?

The area around the golf course was badly affected by the floods of 2007 and several times on a smaller scale since then.

CKFAG fears Sandy Lane could again “turn into a river” because of run-off from the development.

Left to right: Martin Langdon and John Hughes, both of CKFAG, and Joanna Hughes, Cheltenham Labour Party

The action group has claimed the basin included in the proposals as a measure to prevent flooding was designed based on 'incorrect data'.

The action group is concerned traffic in Charlton Kings will be severely affected by the 11,765 deliveries of material onto the site, which will mean four each hour, eight hours a day, for three years.

Read More

The group has questioned why the application was handled by the borough council, rather than Gloucestershire County Council.

Planning guidance says it is “clear” the county council should make decisions on waste disposal applications involving more than 100,000 tons.

The Lilley Brook application will involve 150,000 tons of material, according to the CKFAG investigation.

The action group believes the council has failed to properly consider whether the project is a waste recovery, as the developers claim, or a waste disposal project.

Waste disposal, or landfill, developments are subject to higher taxes and more stringent regulations.

Government regulations state the maximum quantity of waste used in disposal projects should not normally exceed 60,000 cubic metres, with the Lilley Brook course set to involve 100,000 cubic metres of material.

Read More

The same guidance highlights examples of developments importing over 100,000 tonnes of fill material when such a large amount is not actually required for the purposes of construction.

It says that in these cases the material should be considered waste and the operation should be considered a waste disposal.

CKFAG believes the Lilley Brook project falls into this category.

The group said: “It is interesting to note that the proposed development site already has six holes installed in the field, so to import 100,000 cubic metres of waste to landscape the last three holes is clearly an unusual, excessive and extraordinary engineering requirement.”

“Cheltenham council has been asked by many people to look at this matter very carefully to make sure it is not a waste disposal operation, and in our view there is no evidence that this matter has been rigorously tested or addressed.

“The site owner should be obliged to disclose whether they are paying for the waste materials for the engineering work or if they are being paid to take the waste materials.

It has stated: “The landscaping proposals, at the scale of 100,000 cubic metres, seems to be a figure derived at based on a waste operation rather than what is actually needed (if at all) to re-profile the golf course?

“The Board continues to question whether the predominant purpose of the development actually involves profiting from waste disposal rather than engineering for the benefit of the golf course.”

Why was an Environmental Impact Assessment not carried out?

CKFAG believes it is “very odd” that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was not deemed necessary by the council.

The group said: “It is extraordinary that an assessment has not been called for to see whether it will impact downstream water quality, to examine the environmental impact of the transportation of this volume of material which will have significant impacts on the local roads.

“It should have reviewed the matters of noise, dust, pollution and air quality issues over the construction period of over three years, and it should have addressed the impact of the change of the land use.

Read More

“It is very odd that no curiosity has been shown by the council about what other waste material impacts may be imposed on the environment during and after construction.”

The CCB has also criticised the lack of an EIA.

It said: “The proposal will result in a substantial level of HGV movements which will erode the rural road network and result in the importation of waste into the AONB.

“Although in landscape terms the scheme offers restoration of the landscape, the short term harm and wider impacts of this development on the environment of the AONB, have not been adequately assessed.”

What if something goes wrong?

Concerns have been expressed over the safety of the development

The action group has questioned why a bond has not been put in place and whether golf club staff are qualified to manage the project.

It stated: “It is not clear whether the golf club staff have any experience of controlling a waste landfill or controlling what material does get delivered on to the site.

“We also do not know what experience they have of managing the site after the waste has been deposited on it.

Read More

“Given this problem, we find it difficult to understand why the council has not requested a financial bond be put in place by the club to ensure that funds will be set aside and ring-fenced to maintain the safety of the proposed development over its lifetime.”

A conflict of interests?

The organisation also claims to have unearthed a potential conflict of interests in a report into whether a protected species, bats, are present on the site.

The report was written by Grassroots Ecology, while the developers’ planning application was written by Grass Roots Planning. The two are sister companies.

What do the council and golf club say?

Leckhampton Hill near the golf course

Martin Chandler, development manager at Cheltenham Borough Council, said: “It is worth pointing out at this time that whilst planning committee resolved to grant consent in September, planning permission has not yet been issued because the legal agreement has still not been finalised – this is not an uncommon situation.

“This authority worked very closely with the Lead Local Flood Authority in the County Council (LLFA) to ensure that the proposed works would not give rise to flooding concerns.

“In response to the specific concerns from residents, the drainage scheme proposed has been over-engineered to increase capacity to improve the existing situation.

Read More

“Furthermore, the concern in relation to the correct data was raised by Cllr Baker at the meeting and the suggested condition to secure the details of the drainage scheme prior to implementation was strengthened on the back of this.

“It is common practice for the specifics of a drainage scheme to be fully resolved post-decision and in this regard, the development has not been considered any differently.

“The LLFA are entirely satisfied that a successful drainage scheme can be suitably accommodated on the site in the manner proposed.”

Mr Chandler also defended the council’s scrutiny into whether the development is a waste disposal.

He said: “This matter was duly considered in the assessment of the application.

“From the evidence before the council, officers are satisfied that the proposal complies with the advice provided by the county.

“As the report confirms, it is important that the applicant is required to complete the development so that an end-use is given to the works – this is what the Section 106 agreement is designed to do.

“Without that, we would have asked the county council to determine the application.”

He added that a material management plan shall be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority before the start of development.

To support this condition, the Local Planning Authority will liaise with the Environment Agency to ensure the suitability of the proposal.

CKFAG has called for planning committee councillors and planning officers to receive training on flood risks.

In response, Mr Chandler said: “The comment in relation to training is relevant and members have requested that training is arranged to improve knowledge of matters relating to drainage.

“We will be running a series of training events for members in 2018 and flooding will indeed be one of the topics covered.

“This may include content from the Charlton Kings Flood Action Group.”

Lilley Brook Golf Club manager Rob East defended the plans.

He said: “Planning has already been achieved and the planning committee had all the reports available to them to make an informed decision.

“The Gloucestershire County Council Local Flood Authority raised no objections to the proposed scheme.

“LBGC notes that the Charlton Kings Flood Committee have confirmed that the scheme complies with all statutory requirements.

In response to this, CKFAG said: “I do not believe the CKFAG has made any confirmation that the plans conform with all statutory requirements.

“It is our view that because the flood management model calculations and data inputs are (currently) erroneous it is impossible for anyone to confirm statutory compliance of the plan based on the data made available to our scrutiny.”